Yep, and there are a lot of gay people- who find gay pride disgusting, and take no part in it.
Wow! You have done at least one thing in your convuluted oratory and that is to let me know how confused you are. No one is perfect, agreed. It stops there, however,I'll refer you to Romans Chp.1 vs 18-32. This scripture was not just written for the people of that day and time but time until infinity. Now you can try to redefine any term for these definitions that you wish, but it won't make them any more acceptable to Christ now than they were when he inspired the real meanings and consequences of them. Abortion is not mentioned in those verses so i'll give you my unrequested opinion of that. Life begins at inception. Do you want the Chapter and verse for that?Killing of an unborn fetus from the mother's womb by abortion is murder. There might be a subject that we can discuss but it can never be this one as i will not be swayed by liberal rhetoric.
No, there isn't "a lot".
LOL You don't get it.Nobody is forcing you to do anything, and you only repeated what I said in the end. The gov has no business getting involved with who marries who. Nothing changes for you or me, if two men are allowed to marry. What you're arguing for has nothing to do with the Republican party, or even original conservatism. I'd agree with your words, if people were going to force you or me, to marry men lol.
how is there a gay issue? what does preference have to do with rights?
Forget the GOP, they are a useless bunch of RINO, I'm commenting on what you said.Now read it again and see if you can comprehend what I''m saying about amending the Constitution.Are you actually willing to let that happen?Yet you don't see the obverse?In forcing social change as to accepting a perversion by a small minority is a Constitutional issue, it would require a Constitutional Amendment for it to be accepted.So in a sense, you are telling me to accept what politicians dictate.Why should we be forced into change, were not demanding any Constitutional changes, were not the ones demanding people accept a perversion into mainstream America.No, I think you have it completely bassackwards.If anything you should be asking yourself why the Fed is in the Marriage business in the first place?Answer: For the money and control.I want the Fed out of marriage. Period!
First of all, whether it's state or federal, the governmet HAS to be involved in the gay marriage issue.Why?Because the majority of weddings are still held in churches, and the majority of churches won't perform gay weddings. So, we are left with judges or justices of the peace, both of which are required to follow the state's rules. No way around government involvement.I tend to agree with Paladin, but calling them marriages causes problems, and changes the very definition of what, (for centuries), has defined the binding relationship between a man and a woman. I too, have a problem with calling these relationships, "marriage".In the UK, the state ruled that they will be called, "civil partnerships", and that the state will not force the churches to perform the ceremonies. Case closed, all is well, nobody cares................no big deal. Makes sense too, since I've never heard of a gay couple referring to each other as husband and wife. Typically, it's "my partner".As usual, it's the radicals from both sides that control the argument. Here in NC, many counties were quietly performing same sex civil unions. Nobody complained or cared. Along came the loudmouth gay radicals, screaming MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE-MARRIAGE. Who knows if they were even gay...............maybe just leftist shit disturbers.Long story, short. Gay MARRIAGE was put on the ballot, and shot down. It's too bad that it was insisted on being put on the ballot. I'm sure that most gays were fine with things the way they were. They were getting what they wanted, and there wasn't a big fight involved. The people that wanted to make headlines, screwed it up.
And you know this how?
Oh I don't agree with gay marriage in the sense of changing any definitions, or the constitution. There are quite a few gays out there, friends I know, and my brother included- who have no desire to change anything- and don't even like the term "marriage" between two men or women- because they see it as emulating male/female- and feel that's wrong... I agree.What you said, is exactly what I'm talking about- but too many people are more concerned with religious stuff- and not what the founding fathers intended for the country and people. The Republican party, instead of being a political church- which is what they've become ever since they've become linked up with the Christian coalition- because they saw how much it helped Democrats- need to get back to Lincoln Republicanism. Be the party that stresses, you will fight hard for the freedom and rights for all Americans, which includes religious rights and freedoms. There are churches that are very accepting of gays, and will conduct weddings for them. Then there are people who don't believe in god, or may but not into being apart of any church- who will have the wedding done without a priest. Republicans need to express how they will protect churches who do not believe in these things, from being forced into having to do them.Instead they come at it in a way, all out of fear of upsetting the religious right- who will not vote for them; which makes them look like judgmental prudes- and makes easy ammo for the leftist- which hurts the party, especially since this link with the Christian coalition, was never apart of the Republican party. I know conservatives who believe in the common sense issues of conservatism, and what the Republican party stood for... But don't believe in god- though they respect it.
I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and got to know quite a few gays and lesbians. My girlfriend at the time was in the landscaping/nursery business, and gay people were just part of the scene.I don't think a lot of people realize that there are subcultures within the gay community. The gays that would be interested in forming long term legal relationships, tend to be typical working, normal people, in all respects. They don't seek the limelight, and just want to live their lives...........................much like most conservatives.Unfortunately, the gay community also draws people that have other psychological issues going on. The pedophiles, sex addicts, and heavy drug users. These are the ones that make the news..................and therefore, the ones by whom others base their opinions of gays.From what I understand from talking to gays, there isn't a choice in the matter. It's who they are. Not much different than if I was to wake up tomorrow morning and still be exactly who I am, but wrapped inside a female body. It sounds like torture.I still have a problem with gays in the military. To place gays in units that are comprised of other people that are the natural, (for them), object of sexual desire, will cause problems. Particularly on long deployments, where it becomes necessary to forget about sex.Here's an analogy on my feeling about gays in the military.........................Suppose a group of men, 40-50 years old, decided to start a baby sitting network. None had done anything wrong, and all had clean background checks. They just happen to like kids.I don't care how good their records are, there is no way in hell that I would leave my 5 year old daughter with one of those men. Does that mean I hate men? No. Could it be called prejudice? Sure it could. But the potential of abuse to my daugher, even if it's .000001 in a million, is not worth the risk.